Other

China ASAT test reactions and questions

The news first announced Wednesday night that China tested an ASAT weapon last week, destroying a satellite, became one of the biggest stories internationally yesterday. The report was confirmed by a National Security Council spokesman yesterday morning, and by the end of the day the US and other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and South Korea, had “expressed concern” about the test. The Chinese have remained silent, with no news about the test in state-run media.

The test does raise several questions about which there has been a lot of speculation, but few firm answers:

Why did China conduct the test? The test took a lot of people by surprise (although apparently not in the US intelligence community, which believed that a test was imminent), both because of the bluntness of it and the fact that, prior to it, China had insisted it had no interest in space weapons and was pushing for a treaty to ban such devices. “There’s nothing subtle about this,” Michael Krepon of the Stimson Center told the New York Times. Does this mean that China is no longer interested in a ban on such weapons, or is it an effort to get the attention of the US and force it to the negotiation table?

How will the Bush Administration respond? Will the US, in fact, reconsider its stance on PAROS, now that there is evidence of an “arms race in space”, or will it push the US to accelerate work on defensive and offensive counterspace systems? The Union of Concerned Scientists wants the US to take the former path, but that would involve a significant change of course from the current national space policy.

What about Congress? The House and Senate armed services committees will get classified briefings about the Chinese ASAT test today, Space News reports [subscription required]. One member of Congress, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, condemned the test in a statement but also called on the administration to negotiate a ban on space weapons. “American satellites are the soft underbelly of our national security, and it is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee their protection by initiating an international agreement to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems.”

17 comments to China ASAT test reactions and questions

  • Dwayne Day

    From the NY Times article:
    “The Chinese test “could be a shot across the bow,” said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information, a private group in Washington that tracks military programs. “For several years, the Russians and Chinese have been trying to push a treaty to ban space weapons. The concept of exhibiting a hard-power capability to bring somebody to the negotiating table is a classic cold war technique.”

    I disagree with this interpretation. It seems like an attempt to spin the Chinese action in the most positive light. It seems to paint China as the good guys and the United States as malevolent.

    The most obvious reason that China tested an ASAT is because they want an ASAT.

    To this I would add that Chinese weapon development times are long. They took a long time to develop their human spaceflight capability, and their experience with developing fighter jets indicates that it takes them a very long time to develop even rudimentary capabilities (see several articles in Combat Airpower over the past several years for more information on this). There are other examples as well–they simply do not do fast development. So, unless their ASAT weapon is completely atypical, they have likely had it under development for a very long time. How long have they been protesting in PAROS?

    It seems that a more likely interpretation is that their position in PAROS was a ruse or a propaganda position. Possibly a cover story to conceal their actual intentions toward space weapons. Of course, things are never so simple and they could have been developing this ASAT while also hoping that they could obtain traction in PAROS and then eventually decided to test the weapon after giving up. But their actions do not automatically imply that they developed the weapon because they are committed to a peaceful space policy.

  • richard b

    China has been deliberate, mainly due to a weak industrial basis for advanced military technology. They will be more nimble as they master it.

    China has stood in the shadows as Iran and North Korea(both allies of China) have challenged the US with nuclear threats. It seems they have decided to step into the limelight with their own challenge. I wonder if they feel the US is too distracted with GWOT to rally allies against her?

    Your observation about Chinese deceit & double talk is a good one. Even more deceitful, they had done this before. What is the chances this was their first attempt? Given all of this PAROS was nothing more than a smoke screen. Still though, there will be plenty of people in Congress and the think tanks to give voice to Chinese aspirations for PAROS.

  • I agree with Dwayne about this subject. But whatever the case, the United States probably prefers this scenario in that China set a precident the U.S. didn’t want to set, something that is very important when it comes to key aerospace policy areas (flyover, remote sensing, telecom use, etc.). The U.S. now has clear justification to pursue a variety of space weapons (except WMD for the moment), and the incident provides strong support for national security space strategy.

  • It looks to me like China has embarked on a decades-long plan to comprehensively challenge the United States as the dominant power in every sphere — economic, military, and, yes, spaceflight. In that light, proving to the United States that they cannot operate unchallenged in space makes sense.

    In the first sphere, it looks like they’re succeeding (with our quite active participation), though they have a long way to go in the other two. The first sphere, since it is a prerequisit for achieving the other two in a sustainable way, is clearly the most important if this is, indeed, their long-term goal.

    Never underestimate the Chinese. They think in the long-term (unlike us) and they are supremely skilled at the kind of detail that makes complex technology succeed.

    — Donald

  • Phil: in that China set a precident the U.S. didn’t want to set.

    Unfortunately, this is not the case. China is following in a path first created by the Soviet Union, then followed by the United States.

    That said, this test was especially irresponsible because of its high altitude. If one must test anti-satellite weapons, please at least do it at low altitudes where the debris will quickly decay.

    — Donald

  • …”it is urgent that President Bush move to guarantee their protection by initiating an international agreement to ban the development, testing, and deployment of space weapons and anti-satellite systems.”

    Without verification, which Theresa Hitchens thinks doubtful in another thread, such a treaty is tantamount to sticking our head in the sand and wishing the problem away. No doubt the Chinese will happily offer this.

  • richardb

    What exactly is a space weapon? A warhead going from point A to B 120 miles overhead? A maneuvering anti-ballistic kill vehicle that will destroy targets in space?
    Seems to me this Chinese demonstration could be used to energize the anti-BMD crowd to increased opposition to all things related to missile defense.

  • Dwayne Day

    “Without verification, which Theresa Hitchens thinks doubtful in another thread, such a treaty is tantamount to sticking our head in the sand and wishing the problem away. No doubt the Chinese will happily offer this.”

    Actually, no. Such a treaty could ban _testing_ of such weapons. But it is possible to conceal some forms of testing, such as a ground-based laser system fired at a target over one’s own territory.

  • Dwayne Day

    Unfortunately, we live in an age of Perpetual Outrage, where people are aways blowing every new event out of proportion. This ASAT test is no exception. The Right is outraged that the evil Chinese have now shown their true colors, and the Left wants to blame the administration for its provocative space policy, and the Right then ridicules the Left for wanting to pursue arms control in the face of the overwhelming threat.

    Increasingly, I just want to retire to a Pacific island and sit on a beach sipping a cold lemonade. I hear Kwajelein Atoll is nice. I could sit out there and watch Minuteman reentry vehicles splash down in the lagoon…

    Anyway, the latest example of Perpetual Outrage to hit my computer screen comes from the Marshall Institute:

    http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=492

    It is called “Crossing the Rubicon in Space Again: Iacta alea est.” I don’t like that title because I hate any title that uses words I don’t understand, and except for a few words that I cannot use on a family-friendly blog, I know almost no Latin at all…

    In the three-page paper, Marshall Institute President Jeff Kueter reports that the debate about there being an arms race in space “has been settled for us” by the Chinese. That’s not really proven, considering that “arms race” refers to an uncontrolled action-response situation and there is no reason to believe that this is what will happen now. (I could digress with a long discussion of Albert Wohlstetter’s concept of “arms control spirals,” thus demonstrating that my undergraduate studies in strategic deterrence were not wasted, but I won’t bore you.)

    The paper also repeats the claim that “China had used lasers to ‘blind’ a U.S. satellite” last fall.

    I was actually working on an article on this subject that I should probably finish now. The problem is that the initial report of this incident never said “blind.” And US officials never said “blind” either. Yet the conservative blogosphere, the conservative media (Bill Gertz at The Washington Times) and now the Marshall Institute have all exaggerated this event. Some have referred to it as a “blinding,” others as an “attack” and others have said that the US satellite was “disabled.” Several have referred to a Chinese “anti-satellite laser.” But, to repeat, the original report, as well as the statements by US officials, never said any of these things. It seems quite likely that what the Chinese did was use a laser rangefinder on a US satellite. I have heard reports that the US has done this itself, most certainly on American satellites, but probably on foreign ones as well. That may explain why the incident was leaked to the press (something that none of the conservative bloggers seem to object to), but why the US government never made a formal protest to the Chinese–it’s not really that big a deal.

    The conservative media has been contradictory on this specific subject. If China did indeed “attack” a US satellite, how come the administration never issued an official statement condemning the action? Furthermore, why didn’t these same media sources demand US retaliation for the Chinese action? Certainly if China had “disabled” a US satellite, conservative commentators would demand that the US disable a Chinese satellite, right?

    I chalk this contradiction (inconsistency? hypocrisy?–No, probably just inconsistency) up to several things. One is the general lack of knowledge about military space issues among most people. Another is the specific lack of clear information on this particular incident. And another is the over-hyped Perpetual Outrage environment we live in where a laser rangefinder used by, say, Belgium, is nothing to worry about, whereas a laser rangefinder used by a country that many people consider “evil” and a rival must be considered an “attack.”

    Kwajelein and that lemonage are looking better all the time…

  • Dwayne Day

    “Lemonade” not “lemonage.”

    Alas, brilliant prose undone by a typo. The story of my life…

  • I’d read about the entire affair during one o my annual jaunts to India. The Indians been bleating about it all the while. China’s ASAT programs began way back in the 1960s and it aint no surprise dat they made a test 40 yrs later. Dey should ave made it sooner.
    China’s test a real shot across …..god knows where.

  • Dave Huntsman

    For those here who are Americans, one of our idiosynchrasies is that we think anything that happens in the world is about us. The corrollary for us space cadets is that we think anything that happens vis a vis space, is mainly about space. In this case, I don’t think it is.

    After a couple decades of ‘peace’ in space – i.e, I agree with DDay; one illumination of a single satellite hardly counts for anything per se – why now? The only possible ‘provocation’ from any other country – if one remains focused on space for space’s sake – is the latest US space policy, and it’s in one or two places unnecessarily terrible wording.

    But that did it? I hardly think so. The Bush Administration is arrogant and belligerent – this is not a news. I think it’s not in the end about space, or space militarization; for this to happen in 2007, it’s about Taiwan.

    Contrary to one of DDay’s other assertions, the Chinese military improvement and buildup cannot be dismissed (my word) so blithely. They’ve been contracting their Army- and pulling it back from the North. Almost all of the buildup, and improvement, has taken place on the Taiwan Straights; and emphasizes missles, the Navy, and the Air Force. Not the Army overall. The great increases (and they are consistently double digit by anyone’s accounting) so specifically targetted means a huge change in capability – and, threat – in one specific area; and against two targets: Taiwan, and the US Navy.

    Add to that:
    – the Beijing Olympics are in 2008;
    – the US is bogged down – in fact, losing – in Iraq, and the American people are getting sick of things. There is no stomach for another conflict, however ‘justified’ in terms of American morals and interests. There will be no better time for a move against Taiwan for the Chinese than in the next 12 months.
    – couple that with the fact that, for several reasons, Taiwan has not significantly updated any part of its military in 15 years – just the opposite of its much larger PRC foe. In short, Taiwan is not Israel.
    – the U.S. military is the most satellite-dependent in the world; as opposed to China, in the Taiwan Straights, which doesn’t real need them, at all. It was a real test against one of the US’s greatest strength, in other words. And you could practically here the yelps of joy from the PLA folks planning the Taiwan action when it happened.
    What they have also done with the action is create a cadre (pun intended!) of folks in the Pentagon who will argue against any intervention in defense of Taiwan – since it could conceivably (and possibly immediately?) lead major US satellite losses, while the US is already fighting two wars as it is.

    There’s a side note as well: ISS. (Yes, as in space station).

    Using NASA/JSC models , for example, I’ve heard that a couple of million pieces of high-speed debris – space garbage – has now been created that wasn’t there before. True, much higher up – for now, anyway. But the bottom line is that if there is more than just a couple of new, er, explosions in a short period of time, the risk over time to the ISS – that big Target in the Sky – increases, even if not immediately. Even if as a side bar item, China may have intended to get something across in terms of ISS vulnerability in the event of problems in other areas with China.

    Sidebar Two: Neither Japan nor Korea had recon satellites in their national plans – much less in space. A single North Korean missile firing years ago changed that almost overnight. Just what do you think those two nations will do- regardless of US actions- now that China has made clear it can knockdown their (relatively few) satellites, as well? I expect the fastest concrete action as a result of the test to be on the part of Japan, and Korea (in that order) for newer, and more, recon satellites of their own, both imagery and radar.

    Sidebar 3: There is increasing unrest in China; both for health/environmental reasons, labor, displaced people, etc. I think every six months that goes by there will be increasing pressure on the cadres in Beijing to find ways – for their own survival – to distract the populace. Something to ‘unite’ the people behind the party. And there is only one thing that will work in that regard: a move – a successful move – against Taiwan, while it is incapable of defending itself; when the only possible opponent is incredibly distracted and losing its taste for further conflict; and before the summer of 2008.

    Dave

  • richardb

    Given the opaque nature of Chinese politics, their brutal actions of recent years in Tibet, Beijing and bellicose threats to Taiwan, I don’t see the logic of a relaxed view of their accelerating military buildup. Add these facts:
    1. PC-3 incident. Only question was it a hotdog pilot or ordered by their command authority?
    2. Lengthy detention of PC-3 crew just as George Bush took office.
    3. Surfacing a sub in the middle of a carrier battle group.
    4. Breaking a defacto moratorium on Asat tests.
    5. Exploding a satellite in a heavily used orbital plane that would affect many nation’s national assets.
    6. As mentioned above, the drive for military superority in the Taiwan strait, and along its maritime supply lines from Gwadar, to Burma and Hainan.
    7. Repeated Chinese incursions of Japanese territorial waters and airspace by submarines and intelligence aircraft.

    This is a clear pattern of bellicose behavior that the US and other countries can’t ignore.

    I don’t believe we should go into old fashion Cold War politics, but we should assume that China doesn’t believe its own propaganda about it’s “Peaceful Rise”. It is actively preparing military facts on the ground and at some point they might use them to create new facts on the ground that would unseat American economic, military and political interests. Should they succeed it will be America that suffers, especially economically.

    The resurrgent alliance between Japan and the United States is one reaction to this Chinese behavior. So is the buildup occurring now on Guam. So is the growing engagement between India and the US. Incidentally, the US-India reapproachment began with Bill Clinton, so even then there was an American appreciation of China’s potential to be unfriendly.

    Since the US has responded to past, repeated Chinese bellicose behavior, its a given the US will react to this new threat to our spaced based economy and military assets.

  • What an interesting discussion. My only additional comment at this point is to hope that we get some relatively rational, relatively non-ideological brains in the White House real soon, now. We despirately need them.

    — Donald

  • anon

    I know that some of you want to think of the Chinese as crazies. I think we do ourselves a disservice by that kind of simplistic thinking. I suggest that we assume that the Chinese are smart, rational, and that they care about national security. Ask yourself, if you were a Chinese leader, and smart, rational, and cared about national security, what would you do?

    Therefore, I agree with Dr. Day. China executed a long-term development program of an ASAT, and tested the ASAT, because they wanted an ASAT.

    But why?

    If you think about it, there is great value from the Chinese national security perspective in having an ASAT.

    Iraq has proven the utility of asymmetric attacks against the U.S. in front of the entire world. IMO, we should expect that potential adversaries will learn the Iraqi lesson and intentinally design asymmetric approaches as fundamental to their national security strategies. To assume otherwise is to assume that other nations — which might end up on the wrong end of our tank cannons — are stupid.

    For the last 15 years, we have been designing our armed forces around the existence of precision guided weapons. As a result, our military force structure no longer effectively supports the pre-space combat ops that we used to have. Since U.S. forces today are very dependent on “space superiority” we will be (so to speak) “dumb, deaf and blind” after an asymmetric attack takes out (or otherwise neutralizes) our military space assets.

    If I was on the Chinese side — I would call this deterrence. If the U.S. is really worried about asymmetric attacks from China, then the U.S. will be much more careful about taking aggressive action against China.

    Any war with China, that is contemplated by the U.S., now will be projected to be much more messy, with huge numbers of potential casualties (this will not be a war of watching videos of smart bombs), and the outcome will be much more doubtful.

    China wants us to have this doubt.

    As Sun Tzu writes “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”.

    – Anon

  • So much for classified briefings and stuff o dat kind. This was comin all the while. The unclassfd WHITE world warned of this all the while. Sample this,”….Chinese R&D on ASAT weapons have been on since the 1960…the Chinese have concentrated efforts on ASAT efforts for devloping ground based high energy weapons, ground or air launched interceptor missiles….that destroy their targets through explosion or ballistic impact”.
    Now, dats from an Indian book: Space, frontiers of modern defense by a Squadron Leader Krishna Nair. Guess, we slept all da while.
    They blinded (nah,ILLUMINATED), then used a ballistic missile and we still have classified briefings!!!

  • CSQ

    Click here to view the latest issue of China Security on China’s ASAT test in electronic version
    http://wsichina.org/cs5_all.pdf

    China Security Winter 2007
    “China’s ASAT Test and Space Deterrence”
    China’s anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon test on Jan. 11, 2007, was a defining moment for the security of outer space. Three articles in the current issue of China Security explore China’s motivations behind the test, U.S. and international reactions, and implications for the delicate strategic balance in space. Complementing these analyses, this issue also discusses the rationale for China’s robust deterrence in space.

    “U.S. Nuclear Primacy and China’s Nuclear Challenges”
    The global strategic nuclear environment is rapidly changing. A PLA Senior Colonel surveys the threats that China faces and its future choices in meeting those challenges. A second analysis by Keir A. Lieber & Daryl G. Press revisits the issue of U.S. nuclear primacy with the debate shifting to its consequences for China’s minimum nuclear deterrent and the future stability of China-U.S. strategic nuclear relations.

    “Crisis Management in China”
    China’s domestic crises are rising. From SARS, avian flu, and HIV/AIDS, to coal-mining accidents and social unrest, these non-traditional security challenges will play a critical role in defining the future of China’s stability. A Chinese scholar closely examines how China has fared in undertaking this monumental task and the path ahead to better crisis management strategies.

    China Security is a policy journal that brings diverse Chinese perspectives to Washington on vital traditional and non-traditional security issues that impact China’s strategic development and its relations with the United States.

    Deterrence Revisited: Outer Space, by Bao Shixiu

    “China cannot accept the monopolization of outer space by another power.” Bao Shixiu is a senior fellow at the Academy of Military Sciences.

    U.S.-Sino Relations in Space: From “War of Words” to Cold War in Space?, by Theresa Hitchens

    “If the intent of the Chinese test was to deter the United States from building space-based missile defenses, it may well backfire.” Theresa Hitchens is the director of the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information.

    China’s ASAT Test: Strategic Response, by Eric Hagt

    “The ASAT test itself implies that the military option is beginning to win out over a diplomatic one in China as a solution to head off U.S. space control ambitions.” Eric Hagt is the director of the China Program at the World Security Institute.

    Nuclear Challenges and China’s Choices, by Wang Zhongchun

    “China should avoid sacrificing its interests to satisfy U.S. nonproliferation requests.” Wang Zhongchun is a professor at the National Defense University and senior colonel of the People’s Liberation Army.

    U.S. Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent, by Keir A. Lieber & Daryl G. Press

    “America’s drive for nuclear primacy is primarily driven by concerns about future relations with China, rather than Russia.” Keir A. Lieber is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. Daryl G. Press is an associate professor of government at Dartmouth College.

    Crisis Management in China, by Zhong Kaibin

    “Crises increasingly spill over national borders and affect regional and international actors.” Zhong Kaibin is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Public Policy & Management at Tsinghua University.

    Eric Hagt
    Editor
    China Security
    World Security Institute China Program
    1779 Massachusetts Ave NW
    Washington DC 20036
    Tel 202 332 0600
    Fax 202 462 4559
    http://WWW.WSICHINA.ORG

    About the World Security Institute (WSI):
    WSI is a 21st century global think tank and a leading not-for-profit media organization committed to independent journalism and research, and the development, production, and marketing of impartial news and information to a global audience. Through a variety of publications and services, in several languages including Chinese, Russian, Farsi, and Arabic, WSI provides a unique news and research-based approach to communications, policy development, and cooperation focusing on the social, economic, environmental, political and military components of international security and interdependence. WSI’s divisions include the Center for Defense Information, International Media, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, Azimuth Media and International Programs with offices in Washington, D.C. (founded in 1972), Brussels (founded in 2002), Cairo (founded in 2006) and Moscow (founded in 2001), and a Beijing program (founded in 2004).

    Visit our website:
    http://WWW.WORLDSECURITYINSTITUTE.ORG
    http://WWW.WSICHINA.ORG

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>